Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 333, March 2004

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 85. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2003 meeting [see 330th Report, paras. 123-125]. The Committee recalls that the case concerns a collective labour dispute at the Avitema farm in September 1999, following which two types of judicial proceedings were instituted. Firstly, 21 striking farm workers were given custodial or suspended prison sentences and were fined. Their case was brought to the Court of Appeal in Rabat. Secondly, charges of abuse of power in accordance with section 231 of the Moroccan Penal Code were brought before the Court of the First Instance in Rabat against Mr. Abderrazzak Challaoui, the farmowner, Mr. Bouazza Maâch, a representative of the caïdat of Menzah and Mr. Abdeslam Talha of the auxiliary forces of the Municipality of Aïn Aouda.
2. 86. In a communication dated 2 October 2003, the Government states that the Court of Appeal postponed the hearing regarding the case of Mr. Challaoui, Mr. Maâch and Mr. Talha to 20 November 2003.
3. 87. The Committee takes note of this information. In respect of Mr. Challaoui, Mr. Maâch and Mr. Talha, it observes that, according to the Government’s information, the Court of the First Instance appears to have ruled already in this case. Therefore, the Committee requests the Government to provide information concerning the results of the ruling. Furthermore, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the Court of Appeal has already handed down its decision or that it will do so in the very near future, and requests the Government to send it a copy of this decision as soon as possible.
4. 88. Furthermore, in respect of the 21 workers at the Avitema farm, the Committee notes that the Government has not yet sent a copy of the ruling of the Court of Appeal. The Committee recalls that, in its last examination of the case, it noted that the Court of Appeal had suspended certain one-month suspended prison sentences or had confirmed the suspension of some detentions. Nevertheless, the Committee recalls that it cannot understand the precise significance of this “suspension” and that, generally, the Committee cannot reach entirely objective conclusions without the text of the judgement handed down in the appeal [see 330th Report, para. 125]. The Committee once again strongly requests that the Government provide it with a copy of the Court of Appeal ruling without delay.